https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/03/06/1619-project-new-york-times-mistake-122248
But the
debates playing out now on social media and in op-eds between
supporters and detractors of the 1619 Project misrepresent both the
historical record and the historical profession. The United States was
not, in fact, founded to protect slavery—but the Times is right
that slavery was central to its story. And the argument among
historians, while real, is hardly black and white. Over the past
half-century, important foundational work on the history and legacy of
slavery has been done by a multiracial group of scholars who are
committed to a broad understanding of U.S. history—one that centers on
race without denying the roles of other influences or erasing the
contributions of white elites. An accurate understanding of our history
must present a comprehensive picture, and it’s by paying attention to
these scholars that we’ll get there.
Here is the complicated picture of the Revolutionary era that the New York Times
missed: White Southerners might have wanted to preserve slavery in
their territory, but white Northerners were much more conflicted, with
many opposing the ownership of enslaved people in the North even as they
continued to benefit from investments in the slave trade and slave
colonies. More importantly for Hannah-Jones’ argument, slavery in the
Colonies faced no immediate threat from Great Britain, so colonists
wouldn’t have needed to secede to protect it. It’s true that in 1772,
the famous Somerset case ended slavery in England and Wales, but it had
no impact on Britain’s Caribbean colonies, where the vast majority of
black people enslaved by the British labored and died, or in the North
American Colonies. It took 60 more years for the British government to
finally end slavery in its Caribbean colonies, and when it happened, it
was in part because a series of slave rebellions in the British
Caribbean in the early 19th century made protecting slavery there an
increasingly expensive proposition.
